Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

The thing is, it's not your language, my language, or any other one person's language. English is constantly evolving, and insisting on using outdated definitions of words limits your potential audience. In order to efficiently convey ideas, it's important to use words that everyone understands; this is the information age, and scientific, political, and social debate isn't limited to the elite anymore.

There's nothing wrong with software as a commodity in theory, it's the way that it is monetized that needs to be revised. Advertising revenue is one way (Google), charging for training and support is another (Red Hat). Trying to treat intellectual property like an automobile is a dead end. Most people who wouldn't think about stealing a car have no problem downloading IP, because software isn't real in the same sense that a car is; everyone knows this except organizations like the MPAA and RIAA. Things will change, but it may take many years.

What you're describing sounds a lot like The Jetsons. I agree that everything that can be automated will be, eventually, but, you can't automate writing software, movies, music, or books; there will always be a job market for the creators of these things, in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. For those that don't have the skills or desire to create intellectual property, there will always some things that are difficult to automate, such as garbage collection and law enforcement.

This is like me finding a pair of old eye glasses and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklins since he wore eye glasses.

No, it's like you finding a pair of old eye glasses, and exclaiming they must have been Ben Franklin's because they look like glasses he was known to wear, they date to the right time, and have the inscription "BF" on them. Could the scientists be wrong? Sure, but the best evidence suggests that these are in fact Martian rocks.

Give a bunch of random people the science, and you'll find people who had the art and ingenuity but didn't know it.

This. Along the same line, not everyone who goes to college has what it takes to graduate, and not everyone who graduates with a computer science degree has what it takes to be a coder. But you will never know unless you try.

Plenty of people vote for a third party, just not enough; it's not human nature to go against the pack. The people who control this country are masters at understanding human nature, which is why things are as they are; they know how to manipulate the masses.

And how exactly is a private citizen displaying a symbol of his or her religion considered "state sponsored?" It's not like they have state officials coming up to them and saying "I'm happy to see a crucifix around your neck." Those who are offended by others displaying pride in their religion (or lack thereof) are not very strong in their own beliefs and need to do some soul-searching.

I believe, in fact, he was speaking against the practice of Laicism (though he didn't call it that by name), not speaking "about the benefits of a laic state." Very few people in the U.S., including atheists, would preach against being able to publicly display symbols of your religion. Laicism at its core is intolerance for religion; as long as its not state sponsored, and its not inconveniencing anyone, me displaying symbols of my religion (or lack thereof -- are atheist bumper stickers illegal in France?) shouldn't be any of the state's business.

To be honest I couldn't care less what's in their hearts, as long as their actions mirror what they say. They're a faceless corporation, not my grandmother; if the CEO secretly wants to murder kittens, well that's none of my concern, and neither is their secret feelings towards SOPA; as long as they don't screw the pooch by creating corporate policy for it, I say let them be.